Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Go Ahead: Ask, Tell

Our society is turning a corner in the way we consider sexual minorities, especially on the dimensions of sexual orientation and gender identity. I remember reading a passage in Keouac, maybe from the late forties or early fifties, where some guys are walking along and they meet some gay men and beat them up. There's no explanation, they just beat them up because that's what you do. It seems to me there's a story in Hemingway, too, the same thing, our macho hero meets a gay guy and just punches him in the face for being gay.

That wasn't that long ago, fifty, sixty years.

Gay people were excluded from the military until the Clinton years, when the compromise of "Don't ask, don't tell" allowed them to participate in the armed services as long as they kept their sexual orientation to themselves. You ended up with some crazy situations -- a 2005 study by the GAO found that 10,000 individuals had been released from duty because of their sexual orientation. A BBC article from that year noted:
Of those, 757 were in critical occupations such as interpreters and intelligence analysts.

Some 322 had proficiency in strategically important languages that the Pentagon has said are in short supply, the GAO concluded. US military's gay policy 'costly'

You tell me why it matters whether an interpreter is gay or straight? Remember after 9/11 when they said we had intercepted some phone calls but didn't have anybody who could understand them? This is why. Somebody asked, or somebody told.

"DADT" is a vestige of olde-thyme anti-gay prejudices, and most people today have gotten over all that. Oh, straight people might be a little uncomfortable when they see two guys kissing or whatever, but most Americans agree they have the right to kiss, they deserve the same rights the rest of us get. And most members of the armed services would have no problem serving next to a gay person.

The news this week is pretty blunt -- Don't ask, don't tell should go:
SANTA BARBARA, Calif., July 8 (UPI) -- A study by senior U.S. military leaders urges the end to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays serving in the armed forces.

The report, commissioned by the Palm Center at the University of California-Santa Barbara, included 10 findings and four recommendations, the research center said on its Web site.

Key findings include the policy prevents some gay service personnel from performing their duties, gays already serve openly and "military attitudes" toward gays and lesbians are changing.

Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the report said.

The report by retired military personnel recommended Congress return authority for personnel policy under the "don't ask, don't tell" law to the Defense Department. In addition, the report recommended that Defense Department directives' language be neutral regarding sexual orientation and set up safeguards to maintain confidentiality between service members and chaplains, doctors and mental health professionals. Report: Repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'

Have you seen the statistics on how many criminals, mental patients, and other scary people they're accepting in the military now? But they won't take a perfectly well qualified gay person?

You can read the study itself HERE.

From the first page, a summary:
The Study Group has made ten findings, including:

Finding one: The law locks the military’s position into stasis and does not accord any trust to the Pentagon to adapt policy to changing circumstances

Finding two: Existing military laws and regulations provide commanders with sufficient means to discipline inappropriate conduct

Finding three: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and undermining the cohesion of their units

Finding four: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has prevented some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from obtaining psychological and medical care as well as religious counseling

Finding five: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has caused the military to lose some talented service members

Finding six: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has compelled some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to lie about their identity

Finding seven: Many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are serving openly

Finding eight:“Don’t ask, don’t tell” has made it harder for some gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to perform their duties

Finding nine: Military attitudes towards gays and lesbians are changing

Finding ten: Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion"

The report elaborates on these findings and makes four recommendations:
Recommendation 1. Congress should repeal 10 USC § 654 and return authority for personnel policy under this law to the Department of Defense.

Recommendation 2. The Department of Defense should eliminate “don’t tell” while maintaining current authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and service regulations to preclude misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and unit cohesion. The prerogative to disclose sexual orientation should be considered a personal and private matter.

Recommendation 3. Remove from Department of Defense directives all references to “bisexual,” “homosexual,” “homosexual conduct,” “homosexual acts,” and “propensity.” Establish in their place uniform standards that are neutral with respect to sexual orientation, such as prohibitions against any inappropriate public bodily contact for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires.

Recommendation 4. Immediately establish and reinforce safeguards for the confidentiality of all conversations between service members and chaplains, doctors, and mental health professionals.

This isn't written by a bunch of activists -- trolls in our comments section will be shocked to learn that Teach the Facts had nothing to do with the preparation of this report. The report is authored by a team of Generals and an Admiral, from the Marines, Air Force, Army, and Navy.

Will the policy change? Elections are coming up, America may emerge from the darkness, maybe some rational decisions will be made, for a change.

26 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The report is authored by a team of Generals and an Admiral, from the Marines, Air Force, Army, and Navy."

Especially selected for their liberal views by the University of California.

That's right, California, where a judge ruled that there is a constitutional right to institutionalized deviancy.

California has been burning since.

July 08, 2008 10:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Have you seen the statistics on how many criminals, mental patients, and other scary people they're accepting in the military now?"

Oh yeah, all those mental cases.

As opposed to guys that like to...well, never mind.

You get the drift!

Say, is Jim slandering brave service men?

July 08, 2008 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now tell me. How will a cross dresser serve in the Marines, Air Force, Army, and the Navy?

July 08, 2008 11:30 PM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

Anonymous said;

Now tell me. How will a cross dresser serve in the Marines, Air Force, Army, and the Navy?

Probably like the reverse of a reservist -- Monday through Friday in BDU's, Saturday night en femme -- an Active Duty 'weekend warrior'. In other words, the same as they always have, but without the need to drive far from base to do it.

Repealing DADT can help mitigate global warming AND the fossil-fuel crisis ;-)

Hazumu

July 08, 2008 11:58 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonBigot-

California is actually a CONSERVATIVE and RED state.

Were people who were in mixed-race relationships also being deviant when they wanted to marry one another?

Thanks for your junk writing again.

July 09, 2008 6:10 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Say, is Jim slandering brave service men?

It is not slander to point out the fact that the military has lowered it's recruitment requirements in order to fill its ranks without a draft during the unpopular occupation of Iraq.

In order to fill its ranks "George Bush's way or the highway," the Army has lowered its recruitment standards at least twice. In 2006, USA Today reported:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties...

...According to statistics obtained by The Associated Press, 3.8% of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels. In previous years, the Army had allowed only 2% of its recruits to have low aptitude scores. That limit was increased last year to 4%, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department.

The Army said all the recruits with low scores had received high school diplomas. In a written statement, the Army said good test scores do not necessarily equate to quality soldiers. Test-taking ability, the Army said, does not measure loyalty, duty, honor, integrity or courage...

...About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.

Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7% were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.


Imagine that, sending drug users to the poppy fields of Afghanistan.

And in 2008, Salon reported that the Army had lowered its recruitment standards again:

The latest statistics—compiled by the Defense Department and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Boston-based National Priorities Project—are grim. They show that the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas has plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007. (The Pentagon's longstanding goal is 90 percent.)

The percentage of what the Army calls "high-quality" recruits—those who have high-school diplomas and who score in the upper 50th percentile on the Armed Forces' aptitude tests—has declined from 56.2 percent in 2005 to 44.6 percent in 2007.

In order to meet recruitment targets, the Army has even had to scour the bottom of the barrel. There used to be a regulation that no more than 2 percent of all recruits could be "Category IV"—defined as applicants who score in the 10th to 30th percentile on the aptitude tests. In 2004, just 0.6 percent of new soldiers scored so low. In 2005, as the Army had a hard time recruiting, the cap was raised to 4 percent. And in 2007, according to the new data, the Army exceeded even that limit—4.1 percent of new recruits last year were Cat IVs...

July 09, 2008 7:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"California is actually a CONSERVATIVE and RED state."

I use to live there. It's actually a bipartisan state with unusual nuances.

Regardless, their judiciary has usurped their democratically elected government and saddled the state with a endorsement of deviancy.

"Were people who were in mixed-race relationships also being deviant when they wanted to marry one another?"

No. Not if they were of age, unrelated and opposite in gender. Skin color is about as relevant as hair color. Gender is very relevant.

"Thanks for your junk writing again."

As opposed to your two ignorant and incorrect statements above?

July 09, 2008 7:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"criminals, mental patients, and other scary people"

Here's Jim's nasty characterization of those who sacrifice to fight for freedom.

"It is not slander to point out the fact that the military has lowered it's recruitment requirements in order to fill its ranks without a draft during the unpopular occupation of Iraq."

Except Jim went a little further than that. Lowering acceptable scores on competency tests and enlisting people who have committed misdemeanors is not exactly letting in "scary people". At least they're letting in open sexual deviants.

July 09, 2008 7:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"criminals, mental patients, and other scary people"

Here's Jim's nasty characterization of those who sacrifice to fight for freedom.

"It is not slander to point out the fact that the military has lowered it's recruitment requirements in order to fill its ranks without a draft during the unpopular occupation of Iraq."

Except Jim went a little further than that. Lowering acceptable scores on competency tests and enlisting people who have committed misdemeanors is not exactly letting in "scary people". At least they're not letting in open sexual deviants.

July 09, 2008 7:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dinesh is at again. Making atheists look stupid:

"What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas. On Friday July 11 the libertarian conference FreedomFest will have, as its featured event, a debate on "Christianity, Islam and the War on Terror" between Christopher Hitchens and me. The media will be there, and the organizers also expect to have the debate up on the web. (Just in case Richard Dawkins is listening, I'll have to remember not to use Hitler-style shrieks and yells.)

In thinking about this debate, I'm reminded of an argument that Hitchens made in our New York debate last October. At that time I did not know how to answer his point. So I employed an old debating strategy: I ignored it and answered other issues. But Hitchens' argument bothered me.

Here's what Hitchens said. Homo sapiens has been on the planet for a long time, let's say 100,000 years. Apparently for 95,000 years God sat idly by, watching and perhaps enjoying man's horrible condition. After all, cave-man's plight was a miserable one: infant mortality, brutal massacres, horrible toothaches, and an early death. Evidently God didn't really care.

Then, a few thousand years ago, God said, "It's time to get involved." Even so God did not intervene in one of the civilized parts of the world. He didn't bother with China or India or Persia or Egypt. Rather, he decided to get his message to a group of nomadic people in the middle of nowhere. It took another thousand years or more for this message to get to places like India and China.

Here is the thrust of Hitchens' point: God seems to have been napping for 98 percent of human history, finally getting his act together only for the most recent 2 percent? What kind of a bizarre God acts like this?

I'm going to answer this argument in two ways. First, in this blog I'm going to show that Hitchens has his math precisely inverted. Second, in a future blog I'll reveal how Hitchens' argument backfires completely on atheism. For today's argument I'm indebted to Erik Kreps of the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research.

An adept numbers guy, Kreps notes that it is not the number of years but the levels of human population that are the issue here. The Population Reference Bureau estimates that the number of people who have ever been born is approximately 105 billion. Of this number, about 2 percent were born before Christ came to earth.

"So in a sense," Kreps notes, "God's timing couldn't have been more perfect. If He'd come earlier in human history, how reliable would the records of his relationship with man be? But He showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world's population, so even though 98 percent of humanity's timeline had passed, only 2 percent of humanity had previously been born, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since the Redemption."

I have to agree with Kreps's conclusion: "Sorry Hitchens. And Hallelujah.""

July 09, 2008 8:40 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

A friend of mine pointed this out to me… she is a retire college professor and administrator who also happens to be trans. She sometimes volunteers at Carmen’s Place in New York. It looks like Rev. Braxton will recover from his injuries, but I’m sure he would welcome your prayers:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--biasincident0708jul08,0,6223903.story


Peace,

Cynthia

July 09, 2008 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"...the more you spout your nonsense here, the more you expose your underlying persona...you are just another shill for the psychos and religious wackos: "California has been burning since." So...the wrath of God is destroying California? (I'm awed at how slyly you managed to slip that in!) Sounds just like the shrieks and jeremiads of folks like Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, and their ilk.
Once again...get a life and create your own Blog site to vomit your bile.
An "Anonymous" fan

July 09, 2008 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonBigot--

Welcome to the year 2008, not 1908.

I agree with the person who said that you should make your own blog because it's quite obvious yoeu foster nothing more than hate. TTF is a hate-free zone. Bigots are people who hate, you are a bigot.

Elected officials represent the people (and the majority)--- Did you forget about that???

July 09, 2008 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Elected officials represent the people (and the majority)--- Did you forget about that???"

California voters have rejected a gay redefinition of marriage already once in the 21st century. Now some lunatic jurist imagines a right to such a redefiniton is written in invisible ink in the state's constitution. Consequently, the voters will have to get out their secret decoder ring and write a magic amendment to an invisible passage.

"So...the wrath of God is destroying California?"

Let's just say things aren't going swimmingly for the California government since it began its attack on marriage and we'll let everyone draw their own conclusions.

July 09, 2008 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I understand the concern about accepting recruits with lower scores on standardized tests. But my professional thoughts on those tests (I assume their referring mostly to the ASVAB) largely concern their cultural bias and their bias against young people who aren't skilled at standardized test-taking. I've known many students whom I would judge to be good material for military service who struggled with the ASVAB and other fill-in-the-bubble tests. I note that a number of colleges no longer require the SAT or ACT for applicants; I've heard and read that standardized tests performance is not a good predictor for such measures of success as college grades and adult income levels. I would expect a similar disconnect between test scores and peformance at military service.

Better measures seem to be completion of high school, rigor of curricula, and high school grades. It concerns me that the number of recruits completing high school has gone down dramatically. Does that mean that we are recruiting more young people who don't finish, or that we are recruiting them at a younger age, before they have time to finish? I know some students who enlisted and then finished school before they began their full-time service.

I will note that since I read this blog yesterday (i.e. in the past 19 hours), The Anonymous has posted 7 times, slandering lgbt people 5 times (with name-calling), putting California down 1 time, and posting some bizarre article by Dinesh about the growth in population proving the existence of God.

Can he/she/it help himself? The first step to recovery is stopping the behavior.

The word "deviant", BTW, is from the Latin "de-" = down from, or off, and "-via" = road, path, way.

Being off the path of reparative therapy, CRC, CFA, FOF, FRC, et. al., is, in my opinion, not such a bad thing. Robert Frost (whom Dinesh's alma mater claims as an alumnus) wrote of "The Road Not Taken". I do no want to travel the road those groups and those people indicate (the road of despite and self-hatred). The road that I am on leads to a better place.

rrjr

July 09, 2008 12:23 PM  
Blogger Tish said...

Robert, a few days ago you were gracious enough to let Dana and Cynthia know that their postings are appreciated. I'd like to do the same for you. I am grateful for the thoughtfulness of your responses, especially for the thoughtfulness of your responses to such provocation.

July 09, 2008 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Thanks, Tish. I learn a lot from reading the comments on this blog.

rrjr

July 10, 2008 7:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're welcome, Robo!

We're glad to give you an education in responsible thought!

July 10, 2008 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

We're glad to give you an education in responsible thought.

Oh puleeeeease Anon, you wouldn't know a "responsible thought" if one landed on your lap. You can't even take responsibility for your bigoted and hateful thoughts. You lurk in anonimity and lob insults about LGBT "deviancy," and you call supporters of civil rights equality "lunatics" and "deviants." Your so-called "responsible thoughts" run counter to every American major medical and mental health association. These groups say straight, gay, and bi sexual orientations are normal and homophobia is not, and many of these groups say marriage equality should be granted. You lie and twist what others say out of context in your obsessive efforts to support your homophobic beliefs.

You are the least responsible commenter here.

July 11, 2008 8:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You lurk in anonimity"

Aren't you posting anonymously, Ant Bee?

You aren't an insect of hypocrisy, are you?

If you think encouraging young teens to come out as homosexuals and painting a treacly potrait of this dangerous and empty lifestyle for them is responsible, you're further gone than we have previously suspected!

July 11, 2008 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Unlike you, I sign an identifiable name because I can support my remarks.

I think teaching teens what the AMA, APAs, AAP, etc. say about human sexuality is the right thing to do. You are the one who wants to teach fictions like the notions of discredited people like Richard Cohen and Paul Cameron. Even Throckmorton knows that homosexuals can lead healthy and happy lives. IMHO, your unsupported notions reflect your bigotry and your inability to select even an alias and stick to it speaks volumes.

July 11, 2008 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting the story about Rev. Braxton's work in New York City, Cynthia. It's awful he was attacked for being his brother's keeper. For those who wish to contribute to keep Carmen's Place open now that St. Andrews has closed, here's a link to their donation page.

Thanks also to Emproph for the link-making instructions.

JN

July 11, 2008 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and, thank you, JN, for being you and not somebody smart who might be able to effectively argue in favor of the lunatics who run this site!

July 11, 2008 4:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"your inability to select even an alias and stick to it speaks volumes"

Not surpising that a bore like you could come up with volumes on such an fascinating topic.

Face it. Like all lunatic fringe gay advocates, you'd rather attack personalities than argue about ideas.

That would require intelligence- and judgment.

July 11, 2008 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

you'd rather attack personalities than argue about ideas.

Go ahead and attack me as you completely ignore the ideas I stated that the advice of the AMA, APAs, AAP, etc. is what the curriculum should include and that even Throckmorton disagrees with you and believes that "gays can lead healthy and happy lives." Go ahead and tell me I'm the one attacking personalities!

Everyone can see that you are the one who is focused on personalities and that you provided no meaningful response to my ideas about the curriculum and Throckmorton's evolution.

July 12, 2008 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"my ideas about the curriculum"

?

July 13, 2008 7:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home